An International Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Clinics

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2021 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Role of Videostroboscopy and Electroglottography during Therapeutic Intervention in Voice Disorders

Sunita Singh, Manaswita Roy, NN Mathur

Keywords : Contact quotient, Dysphonia, Electroglottography, Videostroboscopy

Citation Information : Singh S, Roy M, Mathur N. Role of Videostroboscopy and Electroglottography during Therapeutic Intervention in Voice Disorders. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Clin 2021; 13 (3):106-109.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10003-1390

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 21-04-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aims and objectives: Videostroboscopy (VSS) and electroglottography (EGG) are widely accepted essential tools in diagnosis and management of dysphonia. Larynx can also be examined by indirect mirror, rigid, or flexible laryngoscopy, but VSS provides superior visualization and recording of the vocal fold mucosal lesions producing dysphonia. The present study was conducted in order to determine the role of VSS and EGG to analyze vocal fold lesions before and 3 months after therapeutic intervention. Materials and methods: This was a prospective observational study conducted over a period of 1.5 years. Thirty patients were enrolled after fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Results: This study showed that the most common etiology of benign vocal cord lesions was acute laryngitis (26.7%). Mucosal waves were normalized after intervention for both right (n = 1, 3.3%) and left (n = 2, 6.7%) true vocal cord (TVC). Complete glottic closure was seen in 93.3% (n = 28) cases after intervention as compared to 40% (n = 12) cases during initial examination (p <0.01). Mean contact quotient was improved after therapeutic intervention, and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.015). Discussion and conclusion: Laryngeal lesions causing dysphonia are multifactorial. Early vocal fold lesions causing dysphonia may not be evident by conventional methods of laryngeal assessment including indirect and direct laryngoscopy. This study demonstrated that VSS and EGG provide comprehensive information regarding vocal fold pathology for both diagnosis and follow-up of patients having voice disorders.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Mehta D, Hillman R. Voice assessment: updates on perceptual, acoustic, aerodynamic, and endoscopic imaging methods. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;16(3):211–215. DOI: 10.1097/MOO.0b013e3282fe96ce.
  2. Bastian RW, Levine LA. Visual methods for the office diagnosis of voice disorders. Ear Nose Throat J 1988;67(5):363–379. PMID: 3046918.
  3. Flint P, Flint P, Cummings C. Cummings otolaryngology head and neck surgery. 7th ed. Canada: Elsevier; 2020. 3126 p.
  4. Cohen S, Thomas S, Roy N, et al. Frequency and factors associated with use of videolaryngostroboscopy in voice disorder assessment. Laryngoscope 2014;124(9):2118–2124. DOI: 10.1002/lary.24688.
  5. Krausert C, Olszewski A, Taylor L, et al. Mucosal wave measurement and visualization techniques. J Voice 2011;25(4):395–405. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2010.02.001.
  6. Awan S, Krauss A, Herbst C. An examination of the relationship between electroglottographic contact quotient, electroglottographic decontacting phase profile, and acoustical spectral moments. J Voice 2015;29(5):519–529. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.10.016.
  7. Popolo P, Titze I. Qualification of a quantitative laryngeal imagingsystem using videostroboscopy and videokymography. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2008;117(6):404–412. DOI: 10.1177/000348940811700602.
  8. Fried MP, editor. The larynx: a multidisciplinary approach. Mosby Incorporated; 1996.
  9. Sulica L. Hoarseness. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;137(6): 616. DOI: 10.1001/archoto.2011.80.
  10. Schwartz S, Cohen S, Dailey S, et al. Clinical practice guideline: hoarseness (dysphonia). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;141 (1_suppl):1–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.otohns.2009.06.744.
  11. Rosen C, Gartner-Schmidt J, Hathaway B, et al. A nomenclature paradigm for benign midmembranous vocal fold lesions. Laryngoscope 2012;122(6):1335–1341. DOI: 10.1002/lary.22421.
  12. Cohen S, Kim J, Roy N, et al. Prevalence and causes of dysphonia in a large treatment seeking population. Laryngoscope 2012;122(2): 343–348. DOI: 10.1002/lary.22426.
  13. Roy N, Merrill R, Gray S, et al. Voice disorders in the general population: prevalence, risk factors, and occupational impact. Laryngoscope 2005;115(11):1988–1995. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000179174.32345.41.
  14. Banjara H, Mungutwar V, Singh D, et al. Demographic and videostroboscopic assessment of vocal pathologies. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;64(2):150–157. DOI: 10.1007/s12070-011-0451-z.
  15. Thomas G, Mathews S, Chrysolyte S, et al. Outcome analysis of benign vocal cord lesions by videostroboscopy, acoustic analysis and voice handicap index. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;59(4):336–340. DOI: 10.1007/s12070-007-0096-0.
  16. Powell M, Deliyski D, Hillman R, et al. Comparison of videostroboscopy to stroboscopy derived from high-speed videoendoscopy for evaluating patients with vocal fold mass lesions. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2016;25(4):576–589. DOI: 10.1044/2016_AJSLP-15-0050.
  17. Nieto A, Cobeta I, Kitzing P. La electroglotografía en la investigación y la clínica laríngea [Electroglottography in the research and physiology of larynx]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 1993;44(4):257–263 [Spanish]. PMID: 8217266.
  18. Selamtzis A. Electroglottographic analysis of phonatory dynamics and states [Licentiate dissertation] [Stockholm]; 2014. (TRITA-CSC-A). Available from: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-145692.
  19. Nacci A, Romeo SO, Cavaliere MD, et al. Comparison of electroglottographic variability index in euphonic and pathological voice. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2019;39(6):381–388. DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-2127.
  20. Kankare E, Laukkanen A-M, Ilomäki I, et al. Electroglottographic contact quotient in different phonation types using different amplitude threshold levels. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 2012;37(3): 127–132. DOI: 10.3109/14015439.2012.664656.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.